I would appreciate knowing more of your rationale for discontinuing this program, as I am not yet convinced that so doing is in the best interests of the camping public.

Sincerely,

RALPH S. REGULA,
Member of Congress.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, Washington, D.C., April 8, 1974.

Hon. RALPH S. REGULA,

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. REGULA: Thank you for your letter concerning the campground system.

As you noted, the evaluation of last year's pilot program termed it a success and recommended that the system be expanded to additional park areas. However, when Public Law 93-81 was signed into law on August 1, 1973, the reservation system in operation at that time showed an immediate increase in the number of campers with reservations who failed to appear for their campsites. At Everglades National Park, which was operated on a reservation basis throughout this winter without camping fees, we have experienced a "no-show" rate as high as 50 percent. This in part was due to the energy crisis which affected the east coast during this period.

With this in mind, we realize that we cannot operate a reservation system without authority to charge camping fees. As long as the public has to pay a fee to reserve free campsites, the system will seem unfair. We will not reinstate a reservation system unless pending legislation to restore camping fees is enacted by the Congress.

At this time, however, it appears likely that the necessary legislation will be enacted, enabling us to again collect camping fees and establish an expanded reservation system. We are presently proceeding with measures necessary to make this reservation system available to the public, when and if the necessary congressional action takes place.

We appreciate knowing of your interest in the reservation system.
Sincerely yours,

RONALD H. WALKER,

Director.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, this morning, what we want to do is have some oversight discussions with regard to the campground reservation systems, and in regard to any lease of campground concessions. Our first witness this morning is our colleague on the committee, the Honorable John Dellenback. We welcome our colleague as a witness before his own committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DELLENBACK

Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the other members of the subcommittee very much for this opportunity to testify before you today.

I wish to express my support for the principles embodied in S. 2844 and H.R. 13913. I have not had a chance to read in detail the bill to which the chairman has just made reference, introduced by our colleague; so I don't know the points of distinction between that bill and the bill to which I do make reference in this testimony. But since S. 2844 and H.R. 13913 are almost identical in thrust and direction, I will primarily refer to H.R. 13913, which I introduced, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to provide for the collection of special recreation use fees at certain Federal

recreation areas. This bill would permit reinstating user fees of many federally operated recreation areas, thus helping to provide or reinstate collection of the increased Federal revenue necessary and badly needed for the maintenance of existing Federal recreation areas and the acquisition of new public areas.

On August 1, 1973, Public Law 93-81 went into effect providing that no fee could be charged for the use of certain recreation areas unless certain facilities were provided. The enactment of this law resulted in the virtual elimination of user fees at Federal campgrounds.

In my own State of Oregon, the Siuslaw National Forest, for an example, which contains the Dunes National Recreation Area recorded recreation use receipts of $30,200 in fiscal year 1972 and of $38,009 in fiscal year 1973, as compared with $11,800 received in fiscal year 1974 before Public Law 93-81 went into effect. The drop in revenue will be even sharper this year if Congress does not enact legislation along the lines of H.R. 13913. When this effect is multiplied to cover recreation revenues nationwide, we can get some idea of the serious economic consequences the passage of Public Law 94-81 has had. If the present situation continues, it could mean a nationwide total yearly revenue loss of what the Senate bill report indicated would be at least $7 million which is designated for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

And I might state parenthetically at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I have asked the Library of Congress to give me an estimate of revenue losses to the Federal Government, and the report under date of October 16, 1973, from the Library of Congress said, "Passage of 93-81 has had serious economic and administrative consequences. Estimates of revenue losses to the Federal Government range as high as $26 million, for instance." I don't know which is the accurate figure, the figure which appears in the Senate report of the bill, or the figure that was reported to me by the Library of Congress. In any event, we are dealing here with a number of millions of dollars badly needed in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

In addition to monetary impact, the Dunes National Recreation Area officials, again to use that as an example, have informed me that the curtailment of user fees has resulted in an increase in "squatting," where one user monopolizes a site. The imposition of a nominal user fee should help relieve this practice and encourage the desired turnover in the use of recreation sites.

Both H.R. 13913 and S. 2844 would reestablish user fees by listing exempted facilities and services for which no user fees may be charged if used either singly or in combination, while at the same time retaining the criteria already established in the basic Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to determine user fees for nonexempted sites. H.R. 13913 differs from S. 2844 in this section in that it lists "trails" as one of the exempted facilities for which user fees cannot be charged while S. 2844 does not. Since trails are such an essential part of almost any recreation area, it would certainly be undesirable to make them subject to a user fee. H.R. 13913 provides for the collection of special recreation use fees while S. 2844

provides for the collection of daily recreation use fees. The term "special" provides more flexibility as to the fee schedule, allowing agencies to collect fees on a seasonal or multivisit as well as on a daily basis.

That the use of Golden Eagle Passports is not restricted to persons entering an area by single, noncommercial vehicle, but that they can also be used by persons using other means, such as horse, foot, bicycle, or commercial vehicle, is clarified by H.R. 13913.

In addition, H.R. 13913 modifies the present law by replacing the term "person purchasing" with the term "permit holder" to acknowledge the possibility that a Golden Eagle Passport may be issued in the name of someone other than the purchaser, such as might take place in the case of a gift. It would also amend the present law to provide that the Golden Age Passport be a lifetime passport rather than one which is issued annually. Since these are issued free-of-charge to persons over 62 years and older, this change will eliminate much of the administrative burden placed on both the permit holder and the administering agencies.

Finally, H.R. 13913 gives the head of the administering Federal agency the authority to contact with any public agency to provide visitor reservation services.

The elimination of user fees last year as a result of the passage of Public Law 93-81 has led to a substantial cutback in Federal revenues which, if continued, could eventually result in a decreased availability of recreation areas-something none of us would like to see happen. I urge the subcommittee to take prompt and favorable action on this legislation in order to correct the present situation. Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Mr. TAYLOR. We thank our colleague for his statement. Am I correct in stating that H.R. 13913 and S. 2844 were at one time very similar, or identical; and S. 2844 has been changed by Senate amendments since that time?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether that is indeed the case. I didn't go back to look at S. 2844 in its original form. Essentially I am not at issue with S. 2844, the points that I have made reference to in my testimony are not the major thrust of either piece of legislation; there are some issues which I, quite frankly, have discussed with the staff of this committee; and before introducing my bill, I made what I think, are some improvements to what is in S. 2844.

But, the basic thrust of both these pieces of legislation, Mr. Chairman, are very similar, they are reaching in a very similar direction; the differences are minor, compared to the similarities.

Mr. TAYLOR. Once again, the difference that you attempt to show by special recreation use fees, rather than daily recreation use fees

Mr. DELLENBACK. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, there may be times that the agency administering a given recreation area might want to issue a weekly fee, or a seasonal fee. Under the term "special" recreation. which I have used, special recreation use fees they could do that; whereas if we have the more stringent language

of daily recreation use fees, it would seem to me we do not have that flexibility. They will have to do it day, by day, by day. Now, that may be the normal way of utilizing these fees, but it seems to me they could still do that where it's desirable if we use the term "special" recreation use fees, and they would have greater flexibility in the administration of the given recreation area where there might be reasons why they would be there on a monthly, or weekly, or multivisits.

Mr. TAYLOR. As far as entrance is concerned, the Golden Eagle would take care of that.

Mr. DELLENBACK. That's right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR. Now, user fees, thinking of camping, which would be one illustration, do we desire to encourage users to stay over long periods of time?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman because, again, one of the things that I pointed out in the beginning, in the other part of my testimony, that this squatting is apparently taking place in increased degree. They are finding that some people will come in, and without any sort of a user fee, reach toward monopolization of given recreation areas.

I'm not saying that would prove to be desirable. I am just saying that the use of the phrase "special" would permit some greater flexibility. I have not analyzed all of the recreation areas administered by the Park Service, or the Forest Service, or the other agencies which administer this kind of operation, the Army Corps. All I was trying to do in using the broader phrase was to say there might be special uses in recreation areas around the country, with which I am not familiar, where it would be hamstringing if we insisted that it be daily. There may be some far back in the country where one goes into the bush and stays there for a week, and there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to do it on a weekly basis. I don't know that, Mr. Chairman, and I was really reaching for what could be a more flexible utilization, which would permit the administration of a given area to administer the area wisely.

Mr. TAYLOR. Before the legislation was passed 2 years ago one of our problems in administering campgrounds was that some people went in and stayed, and stayed, and tried to spend the summer. And under the original interpretation of some agencies, if they had a Golden Eagle passport, they were permitted to stay there week after week.

Are there any other questions by anybody?

Mr. DELLENBACK. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will quote you in your earlier remarks, which speak very soundly, in talking about distinctions between entry fees and user fees.

We are not talking about supplanting the Golden Eagle; we are not talking about doing away with the Golden Age, we are not talking about that in these bills. But, you have voiced it very soundly, Mr. Chairman, namely, there is a very real difference between some kinds of recreation areas, and utilization of facilities which have been put in at public expense, which are in short supply. If somebody comes in and monopolizes it, that means a great many other people don't have any chance of benefit.

Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct. Any questions? Mr. Sebelius.

Mr. SEBELIUS. You spoke of the Dunes National Recreation Area, do you know if at any given time it is overflowing, so that you cannot accommodate all that are coming?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Yes, Mr. Sebelius. This is really a very fine recreation area in the middle of the Oregon coast, and has some camping facilities, which are in short supply. When one person is permitted to go in, or family is permitted to go in and use it, that means that there are other people who will just have to pass by and not have a chance to use it.

Mr. SEBELIUS. And very briefly, do you know any comparison, say, in fiscal 1973 when we got to $38,000 and the next fiscal year, when the fee was added, and now it's off?

Mr. DELLENBACK. I do not know the difference as to how many more people used it in one year than the other; so, I can't give you the answer. That is a very perceptive question.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Well, we might get the answer to that later, thank you.

Mr. DELLENBACK. The Dunes Recreation Area, I might call to the attention of my colleague, is under the administration of the Department of Agriculture, so I would suggest that those witnesses might be able to answer that question.

Mr. SEBELIUS. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Steelman?

Mr. STEELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question, two questions, actually, of my colleague. I am interested, philosophically, if user fees are appropriate, given the fact that the taxpayer paid once in the construction and operation; and why, following that, should he pay again?

Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Steelman, it's a situation of facilities. Take a State like my own, which I know best, there are not enough facilities to take care of all the people who would like to use them. At the height of the camping season along the Oregon coast you find that people without reservations are unable to stay. So, it's not a fact of trying to collect from the user in the way that would be profitable for the Federal Government. Frankly, the user fees that are charged in those places don't come close to carrying the capital investment return.

But, it's a case, really, of where it is a technique, or a tool which will make the use available to more people. Since they are going to be chuck-a-luck full at any time, the question is whether the one who happens to get there first can use them for a long time; or whether he can stay there one, or two, or three of whatever the time in that particular recreation area is, and then give somebody else a chance to use it. Somebody, I might say, who equally paid for the installation of the facility in the first place, but who was blocked by the fact that some people come there for a long period of time and make it a home away from home.

Mr. STEELMAN. So, you want to more or less ration the use. Mr. DELLENBACK. Spread out the use; and not impose on a person that uses the facility the full cost of the facility.

Mr. STEELMAN. So, the revenue loss is not the major consideration. Mr. DELLENBACK. The revenue loss is a significant loss when one